^ It's not necessarily the elite that cause that spiral. In many cases, it's the little people that are co-enablers of the elite's ability to cause such damage, i.e. the US Political System.

the "elite" are put in positions of trust to represent the people. They (the elite) consciously decide, of their own free will ...(to destroy everyone else's)... To start representing (only) the "people" that give them the most money. The system is then redesigned to (be convoluted) prevent anyone from seeing what they're really up to. For the most part, the "little people" really don't have time (because they're not supposed to...) to babysit these evil pricks.

It's like leaving a 90 year old man in charge of a bunch of 2 year olds ... In a china shop ... and then standing there asking what went wrong after shit hits the fan.

For the most part, the "little people" really don't have time (because they're not supposed to...) to babysit these evil pricks.

It's not about having the time to babysit them. It's having balls to fire them if they don't do their job correctly. I'm sorry, but with everything that has gone on in the past 50 or so years, how are there still career politicians? And how is being the incumbent such an advantage? Every politician in office has screwed up on some vote(s) that were important to the country. (and more plural than singular). How many times do you get to screw up before you're fired?

But the sheeple for the most part vote along party lines as they are told, instead of voting for the best person for the office.

But the sheeple for the most part vote along party lines as they are told, instead of voting for the best person for the office.

True(ish) But it's the convoluted manner in which the issues are addressed/presented. Picking a candidate that has the "right" view on issue A (which they're probably lying about...($$)), may leave one hanging on issue B. In which case you get left with a balancing act trying to pick the lessor of evils (which is my guess for how the party line gets settled on/for). The whole system has become total shit...because majority vote doesn't really swing anything anymore.

"Lessig said the type of corruption rampant in the US Congress is not the old type of bribery, where congressional representatives had safes in their offices to hold the cash they received for voting in certain directions. That is now illegal and eliminated. This new type of corruption is more subtle, indirect and harder to outlaw…. the real money to be made in Congress is the relative fortune to be made as a lobbyist after leaving office. The differential in wages between a staff member and a lobbyist has escalated a hundred fold in the past 40 years. Now 43% of staff go on to become lobbyists. The promise of a well-paying job working for corporate interests later is enough to warp voting now."

@app - that is interesting. 15 defected from endorsing it - and 70 additional have now said they are opposed?

Hmm...subtract the 15 that came over...from the 70 that signed on and that leaves...uh...55 reps that have suddenly found some balls in the wake of public and IT industry outcries?

Not bad...

But, if we take the 65 declared supporters and the 101 declared opponents, and subtract them from the 435 reps that make up the US Congress, that still leaves 269 reps (about 61.9% - or 12 out of every 20) who are still waiting for a backbone delivery.

It's a step in the right direction. But how come I still don't feel too good about this?

"Lessig said the type of corruption rampant in the US Congress is not the old type of bribery, where congressional representatives had safes in their offices to hold the cash they received for voting in certain directions. That is now illegal and eliminated. This new type of corruption is more subtle, indirect and harder to outlaw…. the real money to be made in Congress is the relative fortune to be made as a lobbyist after leaving office. The differential in wages between a staff member and a lobbyist has escalated a hundred fold in the past 40 years. Now 43% of staff go on to become lobbyists. The promise of a well-paying job working for corporate interests later is enough to warp voting now."

This certainly follows what many people assumed was happening, and fits with the anonymous comments from studio execs that they will stop contributing to Obama, but to be so blatant about this kind of corruption and money-for-laws politics in the face of an extremely angry public is a really, really, really tone deaf response from Dodd.

It shows, yet again, that he just doesn't get it. People were protesting not just because of the content of these bills, but because of the corrupt process of big industries like Dodd's "buying" politicians and "buying" laws. To then come out and make that threat explicit isn't a way to fix things or win back the public. It's just going to get them more upset, and to recognize just how corrupt this process is.

I know that this thread is about Censorship of the Internet in general, but I read something curious today - Health department raids community picnic and destroys all food with bleach - that makes me wonder if that Internet censorship is not just a single narrow aspect of a much larger overall strategy of state censorship in the US, driven presumably by commercial interests rather than by genuine state security interests.

I am at a loss otherwise as to how to explain how this seemingly sort of Stazi invasion can be condoned, let alone authorised in law as an act by a government agency against a perfectly law-abiding "feast of friends" (I think this is what it is called).What sort of thing is this action? Is it true? Was it necessary because a crime had been or was about to be committed? Was it a "Monsanto" Stazi? Who knows?Maybe I am missing something that would help me to to understand that it all makes perfectly good sense, but at this point it seems to be a perverse and frightening form of censorship. I can't imagine such a thing happening in New Zealand, though after the recent terrifyingly excessive and exemplary Dotcom raid/arrest, the NZ police have demonstrated that anything is possible.

I know that this thread is about Censorship of the Internet in general, but I read something curious today - Health department raids community picnic and destroys all food with bleach - that makes me wonder if that Internet censorship is not just a single narrow aspect of a much larger overall strategy of state censorship in the US, driven presumably by commercial interests rather than by genuine state security interests.

I am at a loss otherwise as to how to explain how this seemingly sort of Stazi invasion can be condoned, let alone authorised in law as an act by a government agency against a perfectly law-abiding "feast of friends" (I think this is what it is called).What sort of thing is this action? Is it true? Was it necessary because a crime had been or was about to be committed? Was it a "Monsanto" Stazi? Who knows?Maybe I am missing something that would help me to to understand that it all makes perfectly good sense, but at this point it seems to be a perverse and frightening form of censorship. I can't imagine such a thing happening in New Zealand, though after the recent terrifyingly excessive and exemplary Dotcom raid/arrest, the NZ police have demonstrated that anything is possible.

Did you see this update IainB? Excessiveness is all over the planet... not just US...

...that makes me wonder if that Internet censorship is not just a single narrow aspect of a much larger overall strategy of state censorship in the US, driven presumably by commercial interests rather than by genuine state security interests.

BINGO~!

I would say:

Quote

Internet censorship is [strike]not[/strike] just a single narrow aspect of a much larger overall strategy of state censorship in the US, driven [strike]presumably[/strike] by commercial interests rather than by genuine state security interests.

Or rather, I'd borrow from you, as the case were.

No comment on the actual article there as I'm sure people can simply imagine me devolving into a frothing at the mouth, excessively loud, profane, obscene, writhing on the floor mess of disturbing rants better left to the most extreme horror films...

Actually, on second thought, I'd like to add to my blatant rip-off from you...

There is another agenda there.

Making nutritious food "illegal"? Claiming that "pizza is a vegetable"? Stealing a decent lunch from a child at school then forcing them to eat "nutritious" chicken nuggets?

No. This is a murderous agenda. It's called forced malnutrition. It doesn't end well...

The same thing goes for Internet censorship -- it's an attempt to starve people's minds. Likewise, it will not end well.

Thanks for the link. Oddly enough, I could not "see" that link you sent. My browser got there OK, but nothing was displayed. Was not a 404.Maybe they block access from non-US sites? I've only come across that on video links before.In any event, I found another link about it, here.

Well, that might explain it, but I'm not so sure, though there does seem to be something very odd about it.It's an organic vegetable farm for goodness' sake!

I didn't realise it until I read this that organic farmers are under attack in this state to the extent that they need a legal defence fund (Is that right?), and the health department official concerned may have become unhinged or possibly been exacting some kind of vicarious revenge for this.

Looks like your "Health Department" (Southern Nevada Health Department) over there might actually be potentially injurious to public health and - using this farm raid an example - definitely injurious to public legal and/or Constitutional rights.Hopefully, it could only happen in America. Sheesh.

Well, that might explain it, but I'm not so sure, though there does seem to be something very odd about it.It's an organic vegetable farm for goodness' sake!

I didn't realise it until I read this that organic farmers are under attack in this state to the extent that they need a legal defence fund (Is that right?), and the health department official concerned may have become unhinged or possibly been exacting some kind of vicarious revenge for this.

Looks like your "Health Department" (Southern Nevada Health Department) over there might actually be potentially injurious to public health and - using this farm raid an example - definitely injurious to public legal and/or Constitutional rights.Hopefully, it could only happen in America. Sheesh.

Must have been a slow-news-day in this part of Nevada. I mean... really. This is the only state in the US where prostitution is legal! Who gives a crap what they eat before they do somebody? IMO... this is one of those silly stories, that news casters throw in, to get you to watch their mostly boring show.

As-far-as it only happening in America? ... Probably not. But we seem to be the only ones who like to tell everything to anybody about anything. Just to fill the news-slot or news paper column.